Agenda and minutes

52.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R A Bird and D T Foyle.  

53.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

53.2           The following declaration was made:

53.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2018 and the Extraordinary meeting held on 15 October 2018.

54.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 2018, and the Extraordinary meeting held on 15 October 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as correct records and signed by the Mayor.

1.   When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

      In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.  

2.   To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Meeting and/or the Chief Executive.

55.1           The evacuation procedure was advised to those present.  

55.2           The Mayor welcomed a member of the public who was in attendance to ask questions at Item 5 on the Agenda - Items from Members of the Public.

a)   To receive any questions, deputations or petitions submitted under Council Rule of Procedure.12.

(The deadline for public participation submissions for this meeting is 28 November 2018).

b)   To receive any petitions submitted under the Council’s Petitions Scheme.

56.1           The Mayor invited the member of the public to ask his questions and the Lead Member for Built Environment to answer them:

                  Question 1: Can the Lead Member for Built Environment, inform me how many people attended the information event for the proposed new A40 roundabout held on 21 and 22 November, 3:30pm to 7:30pm at the Oxstalls Sports Park?

                  Answer 1: There were 78 attendees.

                  Question 2: Why was it not held at Innsworth Community Hall?

                  Answer 2: Oxstalls Sport Park was chosen as a location due to its central location in the area, andthe facilities the venue has such as car parking etc. Officers are looking to provide another date at a venue in Innsworth and further details will be available shortly.

                  Question 3: What advertising was put out to inform the people of Innsworth and the surrounding areas that might be affected to let them know the event was taking place?

                  Answer 3: The events were advertised via press, radio and social media.

                  Question 4: What was the cost of the event to the tax payer?

                  Answer 4: £100 rent of venue plus Officer time.

                  Question 5: What are the preliminary findings, if any, of the information event?

                  Answer 5: The preliminary comments/questions arising from the event are available on the Joint Core Strategy website. The business case will take these into account.

                  Link to summary of responses (under Documents and further information):

                  https://www.jointcorestrategy.org/a40-innsworth-gateway

                  Question 6: Is the Council going to hold a consultation event in Innsworth Community Hall which will be properly advertised?

                  Answer 6: Yes. The date is to be agreed and advertised shortly.

                  Question 7: What pollution monitoring has been undertaken at Longford and Elmbridge Court roundabout during morning and evening rush hours?

                  Answer 7: An air quality assessment was undertaken as part of the planning application process and the relevant details were subsequently conditioned as part of the planning approval.  The report concluded that the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5, will remain below the air quality objectives at all existing receptors in 2019 should the scheme be implemented.

                  Question 8: As the congestion on the A38/A40 Longford and A40 Elmbridge Court roundabout is likely to increase, what information was made available to Members on pollution levels caused by the increased extra traffic due to the local plan sites at Innsworth, Longford, Twigworth and the Innsworth/Churchdown site?

                  Answer 8: All information submitted as part of the planning application and the subsequent conditions is available on the Council’s website.  All relevant information regarding pollution levels (Air Quality) as part of the process is in the public domain and also made available on the Council website. 

                  Question 9: What is the traffic modelling impact assessment on the local road network in regard to the Innsworth allocation within the Joint Core Strategy in respect of traffic movements in the morning and evening rush hour?

                  Answer 9: The Joint Core Strategy (JCS) traffic assessment was undertaken for the Local Authorities (including  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 4 December 2018.

(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on the working day immediately preceding the date of the meeting).

57.1           There were no items from Members on this occasion.  

At its meeting on 21 November 2018 the Executive Committee considered the disposal and purchase of a vehicle and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case attached to the report.  

58.1           At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the Executive Committee considered the disposal and purchase of a waste vehicle and recommended that the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case which had been attached to the report.

58.2           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the current Agenda and was attached at Pages No. 19-27.

58.3           The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee and seconded by the Support Member for Clean and Green Environment.

58.4           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned why a vehicle had been purchased in 2016/17 which the Council did not need. He queried what information the Council had received from Ubico before the purchase and whether the £18,000 loss to the Council had been offset by rental income from Stroud District Council. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that the Council currently had three of those vehicles in its fleet and the other two were perfect for the role they played. Unfortunately, the capacity and compaction of the third vehicle meant it was not suitable for the role it played. The recommendation from Ubico was for the purchase of the vehicle but it had quickly been realised that it was not fit for purpose. Stroud District Council had effectively been hiring a vehicle from Tewkesbury Borough Council for the last two years but it had now advised that it needed to make a permanent purchase and so did not wish to continue the hiring arrangement with the Council.

58.5           In terms of the vehicle fleet, the Head of Community Services confirmed that the Council had purchased over 20 vehicles and Ubico had specified each to the best of its knowledge at that time. As the garden waste service had grown increasingly more popular, the vehicle would not have been fit for purpose in any event but it was understood that Members were frustrated with the issue. The replacement vehicle would be much more resilient and assurance had been received that it would be the correct vehicle for the role.

58.6           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the capital programme be amended to allow the purchase                         of the vehicle as set out in Option 3 of the business case                                         attached to the report.

At its meeting on 21 November 2018 the Executive Committee considered the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2019/20 and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019/20 be ADOPTED.  

58.7           At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the Executive Committee considered the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019/20 and recommended to Council that it be adopted. 

58.8           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the current Agenda and was attached at Pages No. 28-31.

58.9           The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee and seconded by the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management.

58.10         Referring to Paragraph 2.2 of the report, a Member questioned whether the £285,000 cost of the current scheme was entirely a cost to the Council or whether some was covered by the government grant. In response, the Revenues and Benefits Manager confirmed that it was a cost to the Council.

58.11         Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2019/20 be                                     ADOPTED.

At its meeting on 24 September 2018 the Standards Committee considered amendments to the Gifts and Hospitality Protocol for Councillors and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the amended Gifts and Hospitality Protocol for Councillors be ADOPTED.

59.1           At its meeting on 24 September 2018, the Standards Committee considered amendments to the Gifts and Hospitality Protocol for Councillors and recommended that the amended Protocol be adopted.

59.2           The report which was considered by the Standards Committee had been circulated with the current Agenda and was attached at Pages No. 32-46.

59.3           The recommendation of the Standards Committee was proposed by the Chair of the Committee and duly seconded.

59.4           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the amended Gifts and Hospitality Protocol for Councillors                         be ADOPTED.

To consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s consultation in respect of the Fire Service. 

60.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated separately at Pages No. 1-12, asked Members to debate the options and make any relevant representations to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals in respect of the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service on behalf of the residents of Tewkesbury Borough.

60.2           Members were advised that the report set out the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposals and the reasons for them. The business case for change explored four options for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service: no change/status quo; representation; governance; and single employer. The Police and Crime Commissioner’s preferred model was governance which would see the Police and Crime Commissioner take on responsibility for the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service in much the same way that he currently did for Gloucestershire Constabulary with the role becoming the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner. The Police and Fire Services would retain their own Chief Officers and staff, and be operationally independent of each other, but all staff and relevant assets and liabilities would transfer from the County Council to the Police and Crime Commissioner acting in the capacity as the new fire authority.

60.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member indicated that he had circulated a proposed response to Members prior to the meeting which stated that Tewkesbury Borough Council considered the proposals to be ill-founded and would, if implemented, be likely to deliver a deterioration in the standards of the Fire and Rescue Service currently experienced by the residents of the Borough. It was considered that this deterioration would occur because any fundamental change to the governance structure of the Fire and Rescue Service was unnecessary and would be to the detriment of residents; the proposed change would create a significant additional cost to tax payers due to the costs of change, set-up and ongoing expenses created with no commensurate longer term reduction in Council tax identified; the proposal would create a democratic deficit in the governance of the Fire and Rescue Service with the new arrangements having one county-wide elected person functioning as the residents check on service delivery rather than the current arrangement whereby 53 locally elected representatives held the Service to account; the Fire and Rescue Service had a completely different culture and service objective to the Police Service and combining the two would inevitably deliver a conflict of interest without a resolution mechanism – the essence of the Fire and Rescue Service was saving lives and it acted independently to achieve that objective whereas law enforcement was effectively an instrument of the government and state and operated accordingly; and the Fire and Rescue Service was a community service which was well integrated with the County Council social and community services and operated from shared facilities – it was felt that any change to that would inevitably cause negative disruption to the provision of that essential community service. In addition, Members felt that the Police and Crime Commissioner’s case for change failed to establish a factual cost  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.